24

If, during a medical examination, an alleged accused says anything that might incriminate himself, it should be neither recorded nor reported.[emphasis mine]

source: Synopsis of forensic medicine and Toxicology by K.S. Narayan Reddy

Country: India

Why should the officer not record this clue? or report it? If the convict is self incriminating (though by ignorance) then why not take advantage?

JM97
  • 351
  • 2
  • 6
  • 13
    "Why should the officer not record this clue?" The text says "during a medical examination", so presumably the person present would be a nurse or physician, not an officer. – sleske Oct 24 '17 at 19:29
  • 12
    The general term here is physician-patient privilege: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician%E2%80%93patient_privilege – user3067860 Oct 24 '17 at 20:20
  • 4
    Does India have the legal concept of not forcing a suspect to incriminate themselves? – Freiheit Oct 24 '17 at 20:37
  • 5
    I don't want to answer, but I like this quote "By its very nature medical practice involves the opening up of private lives to external scrutiny. The understanding that medical consultations are confidential encourages openness, trust, and frank disclosure of all possibly relevant information between patient and doctor. This in turn facilitates efficient and effective diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of illness and disease. Confidentiality is therefore an integral element of the patient-doctor relationship, playing a vital role in the primary healing purpose of the profession." – Nathan Oct 25 '17 at 14:06
  • 3
    @Freiheit Yes, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#Indian_law, but IIRC mandatory reporting laws also exist in cases of, say, child abuse. – gone Oct 26 '17 at 06:43

2 Answers2

65

If such conversations are reported, it can place the suspect in a dilemma.

Consider a man who appears to have overdosed on illegal narcotics. He is taken to the hospital, and the doctor asks what kind of drugs he took, in order to plan his treatment. If the man thinks that what he says could be used to prosecute him, he might lie to the doctor. Then he would not receive proper medical treatment, putting his health at risk.

Lawmakers or police authorities might decide that it is better for society for people to always be able to speak freely to their doctors and receive proper treatment, even if it means that it will sometimes be harder to prosecute criminals. That would be one possible rationale for a rule like this.

Nate Eldredge
  • 29,428
  • 89
  • 90
  • 1
    I am interested how this would apply to rape situations - if a man was there for an STI test and admitted to having raped someone, would the doctor still not report them? – Tim Oct 24 '17 at 20:57
  • 27
    I have a sneaky suspicion that a sexual assault would not be called a sexual assault by the assailant during a medical exam... They would probably say they had regular sexual intercourse and leave it at that... – Canadian Luke Oct 24 '17 at 21:03
  • 2
    @Tim Why would you expect rape to be different from any other crime, like using drugs? – IllusiveBrian Oct 25 '17 at 01:33
  • 6
    @IllusiveBrian there is another victim in q sexual assault, whereas drug use is (typically) only going to affect the patient in question. – Tim Oct 25 '17 at 01:38
  • 12
    @Tim, the scope of doctor-client privilege varies between jurisdictions. In some cases it is a question of professional ethics rather than evidence law, in which case the seriousness of the crime might affect whether it would be unethical for the doctor to disclose it. Many jurisdictions (including India, which the questioner specified) have 'mandatory reporting' laws which override the privilege, especially in cases of child sexual abuse. – sjy Oct 25 '17 at 03:47
  • 1
    @sjy Good point. This answer could also put the physician-patient relationship into the more general context of confidental professional-client relationships. There are quite a few of professions or roles which protect, to varying degrees, their clients: Psychologists, lawyers, journalists, priests among them. They all have in common that in order to perform in their role they need their client's trust. In particular, the client must be reasonably sure that what s/he says will not be relayed to law enforcement. They all face a dilemma when the client reveals a future danger to the public. – Peter - Reinstate Monica Oct 25 '17 at 14:45
  • @Tim: The existence of a victim sounded obvious to me as a differentiatior. On 2nd thought, a definition of "victim" may impose problems.What if my dealer is an 8yr old kid, would this kid not be considered a "victim" of its vita? Maybe my drug use gives officials that one clue leading to the kid, putting it into prison for at least until it's 18yrs old, thereby destroying the basis for a good life? What if the rape victim is the rapists mother, who abused her child all life, but without leaving any evidence? Who is the victim? What is guilt? Aren't we all just acting according to ourselves? – Sebastian Mach Oct 30 '17 at 11:45
  • @Tim: The question of "victim" is (I think) equivalent to the question of "guilt". Answering these questions should IMHO not be something pharmacists should be obliged to or burdened with. Enforcing laws should be left to the executive. Judging to the judges. Law definition should be accomplished by a cooperation of ethics and morale, lawyers and people proven credible and upright in that regard. So, should a rapist be reported? TBH, I still don't know. Maybe a task force of credible, interdiscipli. people could help to decide whether a lift of secrecy would prevent public harm. Btw: ... – Sebastian Mach Oct 30 '17 at 11:57
  • @Tim: BTW, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquorentnahme-Entscheidung -> This is about a case in Germany where juridical interest conflicts with basic/fundamental, personal rights. And btw, thanks for derailing me so much by simply mentioning "victim" :P This stuff is highly philosophical and ethical. Therefore, interesting. – Sebastian Mach Oct 30 '17 at 12:00
  • @sjy in the case of mandatory reporting for abuse, wouldn't it typically be the victim, rather than the perpetrator, whose privilege is being overridden? In which case "self-incrimination" wouldn't apply. – Dan Henderson Jan 06 '23 at 19:34
4

In the United States, whatever you say to your doctor or form you fill out is protected by the doctor-patient privilige.

If a district attorney or prosecutor were to present a recording or file of this in court, it would be deemed inadmissible by the judge based on the previously mentioned privilege. Furthermore, your doctor would not be able to testify on the prosecution's behalf about any conversation he or she had with you.

In India, there is a similar privilege in the Code of Medical Ethics Regulation. In section 2.2 it states:

Confidences concerning individual or domestic life entrusted by patients to a physician and defects in the disposition or character of patients observed during medical attendance should never be revealed unless their revelation is required by the laws of the State.

David Zhou
  • 85
  • 6